Angola’s case against journalist Amor Carlos Tomé treats opinion as conspiracy, press clippings as espionage, and critical writing as terrorism — exposing the fragility of the state’s narrative, not the danger of the accused.
Angolan sports journalist Amor Carlos Tomé has been in custody since August, facing nine serious charges: espionage, terrorism, belonging to a terrorist organization, influence peddling, criminal association, incitement, active corruption, fraud and variations of the same. It is an imposing catalogue. But the weight of the accusation is not matched by the weight of the evidence.
Prosecutors claim Tomé was the key operator in a Russian-backed conspiracy to overthrow President João Lourenço. The alleged weapon is not a gun, a militia, or a covert network — but the pen. Angola’s Public Prosecutor says the plot relied on recruiting journalists, analysts and content producers to create “instability” and “social convulsion”. No guns. No clandestine cells. Only texts.
Article 23 of the indictment outlines Tomé’s supposed “missions”: identify critics within the ruling MPLA and main opposition UNITA; map economic assets for potential Russian takeover, as part of what prosecutors describe as a destabilization program; and recruit journalists to write pieces that would “create insecurity” and “lead to social convulsion”.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
The indictment names seven journalists and alleges a combined payout of 800 dollars — a figure unsupported by a single bank slip, transfer or receipt, and hardly the budget of a foreign-backed destabilization plot.
This gap between allegation and verifiable fact is the first red flag — and a serious one in a criminal case of this gravity.
Strangely, the indictment also elevates an open letter from the Union of Doctors and Health Workers into an act of subversion. The letter expresses concern over the termination of USAID-funded health programs. It highlights risks to child-mortality efforts and primary care in remote areas. It asks for clarification. It calls for technical dialogue. There is nothing remotely resembling incitement, coordination or violence.
Prosecutors also cite six articles allegedly commissioned by Tomé in Namibia, dealing exclusively with Namibian politics. None relates to Angola, none calls for unrest, and none mentions the Angolan government. The inclusion of these texts appears intended to imply a broader pattern — but instead reveals the weakness of the case.
The indictment lists 32 articles published between October 2024 and May 2025, allegedly commissioned by Tomé to sow instability — all for a total price tag of 11,000 US dollars, a sum that hardly resembles a sophisticated foreign influence operation, yet is treated as if it were. Eleven concern the Lobito Corridor — a major international logistics project — and six address Angola’s withdrawal from OPEC.
None of the 32 articles, according to the indictment itself, contains calls for illegal acts or any form of incitement. Two regime-friendly pieces appeared in state media — Jornal de Angola and Angop — which undercuts the idea of a clandestine information-warfare program. If these texts were part of a conspiracy, the state propagated it itself.
A crucial omission: the indictment mixes everything together
One fundamental flaw remains absent from the official narrative: the indictment does not distinguish between texts Tomé allegedly wrote himself, texts he may have commissioned from others, and texts he simply forwarded to Russian contacts as ordinary press clippings.
By collapsing authorship, procurement and mere sharing into a single category, the prosecution manufactures volume where there is none, imputing a level of influence and intent that is not supported by the facts. This confusion serves to exaggerate Tomé’s role and inflate the appearance of wrongdoing.
Most allegations revolve around written content — articles, opinion pieces, interviews. Writing critical or biased commentary, even if funded by foreign actors, is not in itself a crime. To transform it into one, prosecutors must prove: a structured organization with continuity, concrete intent to subvert the state, operational instructions, documented funding, actual capacity to execute a plan.
The indictment provides none of this.
One of the central pieces of evidence is an alleged plan to organize a protest against hunger, using images of children holding signs reading “Hunger JLO”. JLO is the informal nickname for President João Lourenço. Such imagery — questionable in taste — is not evidence of terrorism.
The second central element is an alleged email message criticizing President Lourenço’s supposed favoritism of Portuguese construction group MCA – Manuel Couto Alves, in state contracts worth over a billion euros. That is political criticism, not terrorism.
Prosecutors concede that no state secrets were accessed.
Thus, the espionage charge is even weaker. The state then relies on a broad, vague formulation: the mere collection of information that “could undermine national security”. But what information? Public data? Commentary? Press clippings? Without specifying what was gathered, from whom or how, this theory criminalizes analysis itself.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
An opportunist, not an operative
Nothing in Tomé’s profile suggests that he possesses the means or sophistication to write influential political articles, orchestrate espionage, terrorism or regime change. He has no resources, no structure, and no technical capacity. What emerges is the portrait of an opportunistic minor figure — someone who circulates texts, seeks visibility and tries to monetize controversy. Poor judgment does not equal treason.
The indictment relies heavily on: reports drafted by co-defendants, summaries of messages without complete transcripts, unverified digital evidence, chronological inconsistencies, and subjective interpretations of content.
There is no credible chain of command, no operational structure, no financing, and no measurable impact attributed to Tomé’s actions.
When a state uses the heaviest possible charges — terrorism, espionage, conspiracy — to criminalize expression, the problem moves beyond the individual case. It becomes a question of proportionality, of due process, and of the misuse of criminal law to silence dissent.
And the result is not the protection of the state or the President’s power — it is their exposure, and their ridicule.
